Trans Mech Systems Through Its Propritor Jalindar Pandurang Maghade vs Bhansali Agro Tech Advocate - Wagh Ranjit Bajirao — 1/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 20 (C). Disposed: Uncontested--TRANSFERRED / MADE OVER on 07th March 2026.

Civil Suit

CNR: MHPU140025392025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

26-11-2025

Filing Number

1043/2025

Filing Date

26-11-2025

Registration No

1/2025

Registration Date

26-11-2025

Court

Additional District Court, Baramati

Judge

16-District Judge -4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati

Decision Date

07th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--TRANSFERRED / MADE OVER

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 20 (C)
COPYRIGHT ACT Section 62 (2)

Petitioner(s)

Trans Mech Systems Through Its Propritor Jalindar Pandurang Maghade

Adv. MALWADE JYOTSNA GANESH

Respondent(s)

Bhansali Agro Tech Advocate - Wagh Ranjit Bajirao

Hearing History

Judge: 16-District Judge -4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati

07-03-2026

Disposed

06-03-2026

Order

05-03-2026

Order

02-02-2026

Arguments

16-01-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

07-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

Summary The District Court of Baramati transferred the design piracy suit (Trans Mech Systems v. Bhansali Agro Tech) to the Bombay High Court under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000. The court held that once the defendant raised grounds under Section 19 of the Act challenging the validity of the plaintiff's five registered designs in its written statement and filed cancellation petitions before the Controller of Designs, the district court lost jurisdiction and was mandated to transfer the case. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that it should examine the substantive merit of the defendant's invalidity claims before transferring. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The District Court of Baramati transferred the design piracy suit (Trans Mech Systems v. Bhansali Agro Tech) to the Bombay High Court under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000. The court held that once the defendant raised grounds under Section 19 of the Act challenging the validity of the plaintiff's five registered designs in its written statement and filed cancellation petitions before the Controller of Designs, the district court lost jurisdiction and was mandated to transfer the case. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that it should examine the substantive merit of the defendant's invalidity claims before transferring. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Additional District Court, Baramati All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case